Cited by 913Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Association of Electronic Cigarette Use With Initiation of Combustible Tobacco Product Smoking in Early Adolescence

Open access
Leventhal, Adam M., Strong, David R., Kirkpatrick, Matthew G., Unger, Jennifer B., Sussman, Steve, Riggs, Nathaniel R., Stone, Matthew D., Khoddam, Rubin +2 more·2015·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Exposure to nicotine in electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is becoming increasingly common among adolescents who report never having smoked combustible tobacco. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether e-cigarette use among 14-year-old adolescents who have never tried combustible tobacco is associated with risk of initiating use of 3 combustible tobacco products (ie, cigarettes, cigars, and hookah). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal repeated assessment of a school-based cohort at baseline (fall 2013, 9th grade, mean age = 14.1 years) and at a 6-month follow-up (spring 2014, 9th grade) and a 12-month follow-up (fall 2014, 10th grade). Ten public high schools in Los Angeles, California, were recruited through convenience sampling. Participants were students who reported never using combustible tobacco at baseline and completed follow-up assessments at 6 or 12 months (N = 2530). At each time point, students completed self-report surveys during in-classroom data collections. EXPOSURE: Student self-report of whether he or she ever used e-cigarettes (yes or no) at baseline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Six- and 12-month follow-up reports on use of any of the following tobacco products within the prior 6 months: (1) any combustible tobacco product (yes or no); (2) combustible cigarettes (yes or no), (3) cigars (yes or no); (4) hookah (yes or no); and (5) number of combustible tobacco products (range: 0-3). RESULTS: Past 6-month use of any combustible tobacco product was more frequent in baseline e-cigarette ever users (n = 222) than never users (n = 2308) at the 6-month follow-up (30.7% vs 8.1%, respectively; difference between groups in prevalence rates, 22.7% [95% CI, 16.4%-28.9%]) and at the 12-month follow-up (25.2% vs 9.3%, respectively; difference between groups, 15.9% [95% CI, 10.0%-21.8%]). Baseline e-cigarette use was associated with greater likelihood of use of any combustible tobacco product averaged across the 2 follow-up periods in the unadjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR], 4.27 [95% CI, 3.19-5.71]) and in the analyses adjusted for sociodemographic, environmental, and intrapersonal risk factors for smoking (OR, 2.73 [95% CI, 2.00-3.73]). Product-specific analyses showed that baseline e-cigarette use was positively associated with combustible cigarette (OR, 2.65 [95% CI, 1.73-4.05]), cigar (OR, 4.85 [95% CI, 3.38-6.96]), and hookah (OR, 3.25 [95% CI, 2.29-4.62]) use and with the number of different combustible products used (OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 3.16-5.74]) averaged across the 2 follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among high school students in Los Angeles, those who had ever used e-cigarettes at baseline compared with nonusers were more likely to report initiation of combustible tobacco use over the next year. Further research is needed to understand whether this association may be causal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2015.8950

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leventhal, A. M., Strong, D. R., Kirkpatrick, M. G., Unger, J. B., Sussman, S., Riggs, N. R., Stone, M. D., Khoddam, R., Samet, J. M., & Audrain-McGovern, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Leventhal, Adam M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2015-08-18
Volume
314
Issue
7
Pages
700
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1824236177
Cited by
913
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 129 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 118 · 2016: 127 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 1
FWCI
93.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA033296, R01DA026831, F31DA039708)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA180905)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
electronic cigarettes, adolescent smoking, never smokers, hookah, cigars, cigarettes, nicotine exposure, adolescent tobacco use, school-based cohort, tobacco product use
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Data Collection, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Ganglionic Stimulants, Humans, Male, Nicotine, Risk Factors, Smoking, Students, Los Angeles, Odds Ratio, Self Report, Tobacco Products, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review